Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

re: Atlantis and Hancock

Expand Messages
  • Chris
    Well I m piecing together the puzzle and thought you might like to view. Interested British list members will no doubt already be familiar with this--the
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 19, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Well I'm piecing together the puzzle and thought you might like to view.
      Interested British list members will no doubt already be familiar with
      this--the program dates originally to 1999! But it was pretty new to me so
      pardon your indulgence.

      I always liked the pictures in Hancock's "Heaven's Mirror". The
      corresponding 1998 TV series, "Quest for the Lost Civilization" had record
      audiences. It seems that the BBC either wanted in on the action or
      academics wanted to set the record straight. Two documentaries were made as
      a result:

      Oct 28, 1999: Episode 1: Atlantis Uncovered
      transcript:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/atlantisuncoveredtrans.shtml

      Nov 4, 1999: Episode 2: Atlantis Reborn
      transcript:
      http://www1.thny.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/atlantisrebornagain_transcri
      pt.shtml

      Hancock does not feature in the first one (just a little), but the second
      one is devoted almost exclusively to him and Robert Bauval.

      I didn't know that: I have only seen the first one.

      But from the transcripts and the impartial ruling against the Horizon team,
      one wonders if they weren't just trying to get in on the "action".

      At any rate, the program began with the narrator announcing:

      "Graham Hancock is determined to re-write history. His books about the
      ancient past have sold in their millions, making him a leading figure in a
      group of influential and radical authors. Hancock has a huge following who
      believe passionately in his controversial views that civilisation was
      invented by a God-like people ignored by orthodox historians."

      This seems to be the key-point: people passionately much of what Hancock
      writes. Why is that? I'm inclined to think it says more about our
      willingness to believe than anything substantial about Hancock's claims.
      People *want* to think there were lost civilizations. Why do you suppose
      that is?

      Prior to the documentary, Hancock seemed upbeat. Writing before it aired,

      "Most of my friends in television have warned me that I must expect a ritual
      slaughter in which I will be intellectually dismembered and consumed by a
      tribe of furious academics...We shall see. All I know is that the Horizon
      team, under Director Chris Hale, struck me as intelligent, decent and
      reasonable people. They spent two full days - several weeks apart -
      interviewing me at my home in Devon and as far as I could see they wanted to
      be fair and to give me the opportunity to defend myself."

      So he was in for a shock, eh.

      In researching this, I found a couple ideas of Hancock I didn't know before:

      re: Antartica
      Hancock: "One of the many gross misrepresentations of my work to appear in
      the recent BBC2 'Horizon' documentary ('Atlantis Reborn', 4 November 1999)
      was the repetition of a most unfortunate error often made by other media as
      well since the publication of Fingerprints of the Gods in 1995. This is the
      error that I was somehow the originator or creator of the theory that
      identifies Antarctica with the lost continent of Atlantis.

      I AM NOT THE ORIGINATOR OR CREATOR OF THIS THEORY. The full credit for it,
      as I explained in Chapters 50 and 51 of Fingerprints of the Gods, belongs to
      the Canadian authors Rand and Rose Flem-Ath who set it out in their book
      When The Sky Fell (1995) which I was privileged to read in manuscript form
      in 1993. I believed then, and believe still, that their theory is a
      ground-breaking one and that it is immensely important to any proper
      consideration of the possibility that there may have been a lost
      civilisation. My role vis-à-vis this original and well-thought-out theory
      was simply that of a reporter and synthesizer, just as I also reported and
      synthesized the work and theories of many other writers and researchers in
      Fingerprints of the Gods. Nevertheless despite the fact that I made this
      clear at the outset, and have continued to make it clear at ever opportunity
      thereafter when the Atlantis/Antarctica theory has been brought up, there
      have been numerous occasions in both the print and broadcast media when this
      theory has been wrongfully credited to me.

      These repeated errors have, I know, been a source of great distress for the
      Flem-Aths, which I very much regret."

      [side note: don't you love how Hancock has put the point in upper case
      letters. Yes, Hancock, you are the paragon of probity. sheesh: he builds
      his arguments on the shoulders of others and, after reaping the rewards,
      then points to them. He did the same with Jane Seller's who clearly does
      not endorse Hancock's skewered reading of her work.

      Hancock has the Midas touch. He can take other people's arguments and turn
      them to best-selling gold. Hancock also relies heavily on Robert Bauval's
      arguments. And both of them are making tons of not-so "lost" cash.]

      * * *

      re: Giza pyramids
      Hancock: "I accept Egyptological opinion that the great Pyramids were built
      in 2500 BC. I am not saying that the Pyramids were built earlier than that.
      What I'm saying is that they were built in 2500 BC, but designed to
      commemorate architecturally, symbolically and astronomically an earlier
      epoch."

      Ed Krupp's riposte: "In The Orion Mystery there's a nice double page spread,
      and anybody looking at this would say ah, Giza pyramids, belt of Orion, one
      kind of looks like the other, you know you've got 3 in a row, slanted. We've
      got a map and what I was bothered by turned out to be really pretty obvious.

      In the back of my head I knew that something was wrong with these pictures,
      and what's wrong with these pictures in their presentation is that north for
      the constellation of Orion is here at the top of the page. North for the
      Giza pyramids is down here. Now they're not marked, but I knew which way
      north was at Giza and I knew which way north was in Orion.

      To make the map of the pyramids on the ground match the stars of Orion in
      the sky you have to turn Egypt upside down, and if you don't want to do that
      then you've got to turn the sky upside down."

      [according to the alignment theory, the pyramids point to the belt of the
      great hunter. It is poetic, no?
      http://www.gravesnet.com/drop/orion_giza.jpg ]

      * * *

      re: Yonguni

      Hancock: "It bears all the hallmarks of a designed ceremonial, ritual or
      religious monument."

      Hancock invited the Boston University Geologist Robert Schoch to inspect the
      site.

      Schoch: "I went there, in this case, actually hoping that it was a totally
      man-made structure that was submerged underwater, that dated maybe back to
      6000 BC or more. When I got there, and I got to dive on the structure, I
      have to admit I was very disappointed because I was basically convinced
      after a few dives that this was primarily, possibly totally, a natural
      structure."

      * * *

      More as I have time.

      -Chris
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.